WikiLeaks strikes again -- U.S. diplomacy stripped naked

I finally found something that happened as a direct result of the leaks, but I think it is for the better.

http://torrentfreak.com/spain-rejec...tm_campaign=Feed:+Torrentfreak+(Torrentfreak)

Spain Rejects Proposed Legislation to Shutdown P2P Sites
Written by Ernesto on December 22, 2010

The Spanish House of Representatives has rejected new legislation under which hundreds of file-sharing sites that are currently perfectly legal, could have been shut down. The rejection is a major victory for the tens of thousands of Internet users who launched many protests in recent months. Conversely, the news will come as a disappointment to proponents of the legislation, including the entertainment industries and the U.S. Government.

Traditionally, Spain has been one of the few countries where courts have affirmed that P2P-sites operate legally. In an attempt to change this, the Spanish Government recently proposed new legislation under which sites offering links to copyright works could be taken offline without a judicial order.

The legislation, an amendment which is part of the Sustainable Economy Law (LES), was drafted by Minister of Culture ?ngeles Gonz?lez-Sinde and assisted by the United States Government. However, in recent months the proposed legislation, also known as ?The Sinde Act?, has been widely protested by the public.

In a final attempt to get the amendment rejected, the country?s leading file-sharing sites went down voluntarily this week. Just hours later it became apparent that the public protests had not been in vain.

After a lengthy debate the House of Representatives decided to adopt the Sustainable Economy Law, but reject the controversial amendment. The law will now go to the Senate without the amendment that would allow for the shutdown of P2P sites.

This decision of the House of Representatives was celebrated as a clear victory for the public.

?The will of the people has put an end to the pressure imposed by lobbyists, embassies and foreign governments on our representatives.? the association of Internet users wrote in a response to the good news.

?And this victory has shown something else: that democracy and the rule of law are not guaranteed. They must be earned every day and minute by minute, because if people are not concerned to defend these things, nobody will do it for them,? the association added.

Representatives of the entertainment industries have voiced their disappointment in the press. The president of anti-piracy organization Promusicae regretted the decision of the Government and said that the creative industry has been left for dead, while file-sharing ?thieves? get protection.

For the Minister of Culture, the failure to get the amendment approved may have some serious consequences. Both the entertainment industries and people on the pro-filesharing side have already called for the resignation of ?ngeles Gonz?lez-Sinde.

Sometimes I am ashamed of being American because of what my country does, and this is one of those times. I have no doubt that American polititions and companies have tried influencing foriegn laws. It is part of the game that diplomats play. But when people in my government try to acctually write the actual law. WTF were they thinking? What makes them think that they should be able to do this? So I am glad that this was part of the leaks and helped get it shot down.

And....


http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=22124

The WikiLeaks strategy: Bank of America buys up abusive domain names

Bank of America has snapped up hundreds of abusive domain names for its senior executives and board members in what is being perceived as a defensive strategy against the future publication of damaging insider info from whistleblowing Website WikiLeaks. 67651 views 0 comments
According to Domain Name Wire, the US bank has been aggressively registering domain names including its board of Directors' and senior executives' names followed by "sucks" and "blows".

For example, the company registered a number of domains for CEO Brian Moynihan: BrianMoynihanBlows.com, BrianMoynihanSucks.com, BrianTMoynihanBlows.com, and BrianTMoynihanSucks.com.

The wire report counted hundreds of such domain name registrations on 17 December alone. They were acquired through an intermediary that frequently registers domain names on behalf of large companies, says the report.

Bank of America has reputedly established a 'war room' to draw up strategy and rebutt allegations likely to emerge from the publication of thousands of internal documents by WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange this week told a reporter with The Times that he had enough data on a major US bank to force the resignation of its senior leadership. While Assange has yet to reveal the true identity of the bank in question, it is widely accepted that the 5 gigabit drive in WikiLeaks' possession relates to internal documents and e-mails from Bank of America.

Late last week, the bank got its retaliation in early by joining Visa, MasterCard and PayPal in cutting off WikiLeaks payments processing, leading the whistleblowing site to instruct account holders to "place your funds somewhere safer", in a veiled hint about the likely impact of its forthcoming disclosures.

This makes me laugh my ass off. What do they think buying all of the domains is going to do? Do they really somehow think that this will stop people from finding the information? All they did was waste a bunch of money.
 
^And it draws attention to themselves already.

It's really funny though. It's going to do absolutely nothing in defending them against anything :p Quite obviously an act of desperation. They're trying to outsmart the internet. Well, good luck :p
 
I'm actually very curious about the bank documents. I work for a major US bank, not BofA luckily, but one of their competitors. Not sure what this would mean for my company, as well as, the rest of the banking industry.
 
This bullshit makes my head spin. How many mirror sites are there now? How many papers have access to the entire file of cables? Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that the release of these documents won't be stopped.
Well, it's been 11 years, and the RIAA haven't learned it yet, have they? Think about it. They can't stop something if it's just on twenty sites. 1500+ mirrors.. well.. good luck.
 
Here's a question for people, if wikileaks caused Bank Of America to fail and people lost their homes would people be as supportive? Is there a point where it goes 'over the line'?
 
This question arises always, when a big corporation stumbles. It always hits the "small" people. When Opel was about to go bankrupt, everyone looked at the workers and the shops, where they buy their stuff, and the restaurants and pubs, where they eat and drink. They were all going to "suffer", the union said.

I thought a lot about that and came to the conclusion, that in our modern world you not only share the benefits but also the risks. When you work for a company and not the state, you accept the risk of it going bankrupt and you becoming jobless. When you invest money somewhere, you accept the risk of losing everything you own.

It's part of the unwritten contract you signed by being born into and raised by our civilized, technologically sophisticated and rich paradises. Consider it compensation for not having to run from packs of wolves anymore or struggling to stay alive each day.

Complains about how hard life can be in Europe, America or Australia, may be filed in Somalia or Bangladesh.
 
Last edited:
If BofA (or any bank) fails (= goes out of business suddenly) due to the leak of some internal info, then it would probably fail on its own very soon. There may be embarassing stuff, and maybe one or two heads might roll when some internal info of some bank gets released, but in order to make the entire bank just go poof would take some massively illegal stuff going on internaly. If such things are going on internally, it probably is good to expose it before more similar things happen.
 
Americans: Anyone a share holder?

Or just buy a few shares, go to the AGM and ask some very awkward questions. Force the sods to lie.

This (legal) thieving, and lying in Banks is epidemic, and has infected ours badly too.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that American polititions and companies have tried influencing foriegn laws. It is part of the game that diplomats play. But when people in my government try to acctually write the actual law. WTF were they thinking? What makes them think that they should be able to do this?

Well, the accepted rule is that Government writes laws. But the US Government allows business to write its laws and then the Republicans stop them being passed. So if they are supposed to write laws, but can't do it at home, then they have to write someone elses... :)
 
This question arises always, when a big corporation stumbles. It always hits the "small" people. When Opel was about to go bankrupt, everyone looked at the workers and the shops, where they buy their stuff, and the restaurants and pubs, where they eat and drink. They were all going to "suffer", the union said.

I thought a lot about that and came to the conclusion, that in our modern world you not only share the benefits but also the risks. When you work for a company and not the state, you accept the risk of it going bankrupt and you becoming jobless. When you invest money somewhere, you accept the risk of losing everything you own.

Agree to an extent and in principle.

However, in practice that isn't the case. The Irish bailout is a point in question, it is bailing out those who risked stupidly and those who had nothing to do with it are the ones saddled with the debt.

The Irish bailout protects the Irish banks, the Irish developers and the European banks (UK, German etc) who lent to them. It protects the auditors like KPMG and Ernst and Young who let Anglo Irish and AIB carry on, the Golden Circle who helped commit fraud. Not only are they protected, the rescue plan (IMF, NAMA etc) is set up specifically to cover their costs and losses.

The bill fell on the public sector. And it is a similar thing here in the UK, with the welfare state, the BBC, student fees and so on all being attacked to bail out the economy. All the while, Kraft move Cadburys offshore to avoid tax, Vodafone get let off a multi-billion tax bill and the chief adviser to the Government on cutting jobs avoided a ?300m tax bill by paying his wife the largest dividend in British corporate history. Osborne slashed ?7bn off the welfare state and then lent ?7bn to Ireland to cover RBS losses. He says it is a loan - I can tell you, the UK isn't ever getting that money back. Ireland can't pay it back.

Investing in the stock market is a one way bet if you are rich enough now - you become part of the house and everyone knows the house always wins.

Remember the roots of the crisis - the little guy couldn't invest in CDOs (UK/US) or multi-million office blocks (Ireland). Nor can they leverage themselves ten times like Iceland.
 
Last edited:
Well, I agree with you. I only wanted to counterpoint the argument, that the "small" people might suffer from WikiLeaks exposing some undoings of a big bank.

So what if they do? Does that mean we must leave the lid on malpractices in fear of somebody getting hurt?
 
You could argue that it wouldn't be WikiLeaks that brought the bank down, but the stupid people making stupid decisions within the Bank.

As a comparison, if you find out that your sisters husbond is cheating on her, and you tell on him.. Was it you or him that ruined the marriage?
 
You could argue that it wouldn't be WikiLeaks that brought the bank down, but the stupid people making stupid decisions within the Bank.

As a comparison, if you find out that your sisters husbond is cheating on her, and you tell on him.. Was it you or him that ruined the marriage?

What if the leak was saying information about how close the bank actually came to collapsing in 2008 and then people panicked and started getting all their money out (even if the bank was fine)

That exact scenario has happened here in Australia with numerous banks in the late eighties, early ninties
 
An interesting editiorial on Wikileaks being shuned by the banks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26sun3.html?_r=2

Banks and WikiLeaksPublished: December 25, 2010
Recommend


The whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks has not been convicted of a crime. The Justice Department has not even pressed charges over its disclosure of confidential State Department communications. Nonetheless, the financial industry is trying to shut it down.

Visa, MasterCard and PayPal announced in the past few weeks that they would not process any transaction intended for WikiLeaks. Earlier this month, Bank of America decided to join the group, arguing that WikiLeaks may be doing things that are ?inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.?

The Federal Reserve, the banking regulator, allows this. Like other companies, banks can choose whom they do business with. Refusing to open an account for some undesirable entity is seen as reasonable risk management. The government even requires banks to keep an eye out for some shady businesses ? like drug dealing and money laundering ? and refuse to do business with those who engage in them.

But a bank?s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.

The fact of the matter is that banks are not like any other business. They run the payments system. That is one of the main reasons that governments protect them from failure with explicit and implicit guarantees. This makes them look not too unlike other public utilities. A telecommunications company, for example, may not refuse phone or broadband service to an organization it dislikes, arguing that it amounts to risky business.

Our concern is not specifically about payments to WikiLeaks. This isn?t the first time a bank shunned a business on similar risk-management grounds. Banks in Colorado, for instance, have refused to open bank accounts for legal dispensaries of medical marijuana.

Still, there are troubling questions. The decisions to bar the organization came after its founder, Julian Assange, said that next year it will release data revealing corruption in the financial industry. In 2009, Mr. Assange said that WikiLeaks had the hard drive of a Bank of America executive.

What would happen if a clutch of big banks decided that a particularly irksome blogger or other organization was ?too risky?? What if they decided ? one by one ? to shut down financial access to a newspaper that was about to reveal irksome truths about their operations? This decision should not be left solely up to business-as-usual among the banks.


I bet the HD was bought from a lot of computers that were never wiped. Oops
 
The thing about banks is that thanks to fractional reserve banking, they can't afford to have a run on them.

Personally, I can't think of another industry that is designed to actually not be able to pay its debts on demand. Not "can't", but actually designed that way.
 
Ukania just stumped up 40 mil to the UN - where do we get it? Yes that is correct we borrow it. How do we pay it back? Yes right again Mr and Mrs law abiding middle class pays for it all.

Politicians = b'stards.
 
Well, 13 million of it just came from slashing free books for 3.3 million kids. I don't use this word lightly, but having attempted to strip school sport of its budget, Michael Gove truly is a cunt of the highest order.
 
Well, then again, most of those who elected this government can afford to buy books, I guess. Tossers.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/world/26wikidrugs.html?_r=1

Cables Portray Expanded Reach of Drug Agency

WASHINGTON ? The Drug Enforcement Administration has been transformed into a global intelligence organization with a reach that extends far beyond narcotics, and an eavesdropping operation so expansive it has to fend off foreign politicians who want to use it against their political enemies, according to secret diplomatic cables.

In far greater detail than previously seen, the cables, from the cache obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to some news organizations, offer glimpses of drug agents balancing diplomacy and law enforcement in places where it can be hard to tell the politicians from the traffickers, and where drug rings are themselves mini-states whose wealth and violence permit them to run roughshod over struggling governments.

Diplomats recorded unforgettable vignettes from the largely unseen war on drugs:

?In Panama, an urgent BlackBerry message from the president to the American ambassador demanded that the D.E.A. go after his political enemies: ?I need help with tapping phones.?

?In Sierra Leone, a major cocaine-trafficking prosecution was almost upended by the attorney general?s attempt to solicit $2.5 million in bribes.

?In Guinea, the country?s biggest narcotics kingpin turned out to be the president?s son, and diplomats discovered that before the police destroyed a huge narcotics seizure, the drugs had been replaced by flour.

?Leaders of Mexico?s beleaguered military issued private pleas for closer collaboration with the drug agency, confessing that they had little faith in their own country?s police forces.

?Cables from Myanmar, the target of strict United States sanctions, describe the drug agency informants? reporting both on how the military junta enriches itself with drug money and on the political activities of the junta?s opponents.

Officials of the D.E.A. and the State Department declined to discuss what they said was information that should never have been made public.

Like many of the cables made public in recent weeks, those describing the drug war do not offer large disclosures. Rather, it is the details that add up to a clearer picture of the corrupting influence of big traffickers, the tricky game of figuring out which foreign officials are actually controlled by drug lords, and the story of how an entrepreneurial agency operating in the shadows of the F.B.I. has become something more than a drug agency. The D.E.A. now has 87 offices in 63 countries and close partnerships with governments that keep the Central Intelligence Agency at arm?s length.

Because of the ubiquity of the drug scourge, today?s D.E.A. has access to foreign governments, including those, like Nicaragua?s and Venezuela?s, that have strained diplomatic relations with the United States. Many are eager to take advantage of the agency?s drug detection and wiretapping technologies.

In some countries, the collaboration appears to work well, with the drug agency providing intelligence that has helped bring down traffickers, and even entire cartels. But the victories can come at a high price, according to the cables, which describe scores of D.E.A. informants and a handful of agents who have been killed in Mexico and Afghanistan.

In Venezuela, the local intelligence service turned the tables on the D.E.A., infiltrating its operations, sabotaging equipment and hiring a computer hacker to intercept American Embassy e-mails, the cables report.

And as the drug agency has expanded its eavesdropping operations to keep up with cartels, it has faced repeated pressure to redirect its counternarcotics surveillance to local concerns, provoking tensions with some of Washington?s closest allies.

Sticky Situations

Cables written in February by American diplomats in Paraguay, for example, described the D.E.A.?s pushing back against requests from that country?s government to help spy on an insurgent group, known as the Paraguayan People?s Army, or the EPP, the initials of its name in Spanish. The leftist group, suspected of having ties to the Colombian rebel group FARC, had conducted several high-profile kidnappings and was making a small fortune in ransoms.

When American diplomats refused to give Paraguay access to the drug agency?s wiretapping system, Interior Minister Rafael Filizzola threatened to shut it down, saying: ?Counternarcotics are important, but won?t topple our government. The EPP could.?

The D.E.A. faced even more intense pressure last year from Panama, whose right-leaning president, Ricardo Martinelli, demanded that the agency allow him to use its wiretapping program ? known as Matador ? to spy on leftist political enemies he believed were plotting to kill him.

The United States, according to the cables, worried that Mr. Martinelli, a supermarket magnate, ?made no distinction between legitimate security targets and political enemies,? refused, igniting tensions that went on for months.

Mr. Martinelli, who the cables said possessed a ?penchant for bullying and blackmail,? retaliated by proposing a law that would have ended the D.E.A.?s work with specially vetted police units. Then he tried to subvert the drug agency?s control over the program by assigning nonvetted officers to the counternarcotics unit.

And when the United States pushed back against those attempts ? moving the Matador system into the offices of the politically independent attorney general ? Mr. Martinelli threatened to expel the drug agency from the country altogether, saying other countries, like Israel, would be happy to comply with his intelligence requests.

Eventually, according to the cables, American diplomats began wondering about Mr. Martinelli?s motivations. Did he really want the D.E.A. to disrupt plots by his adversaries, or was he trying to keep the agency from learning about corruption among his relatives and friends?

One cable asserted that Mr. Martinelli?s cousin helped smuggle tens of millions of dollars in drug proceeds through Panama?s main airport every month. Another noted, ?There is no reason to believe there will be fewer acts of corruption in this government than in any past government.?

As the standoff continued, the cables indicate that the United States proposed suspending the Matador program, rather than submitting to Mr. Martinelli?s demands. (American officials say the program was suspended, but the British took over the wiretapping program and have shared the intelligence with the United States.)

In a statement on Saturday, the government of Panama said that it regretted ?the bad interpretation by United States authorities of a request for help made to directly confront crime and drug trafficking.? It said that Panama would continue its efforts to stop organized crime and emphasized that Panama continued to have ?excellent relations with the United States.?

Meanwhile in Paraguay, according to the cables, the United States acquiesced, agreeing to allow the authorities there to use D.E.A. wiretaps for antikidnapping investigations, as long as they were approved by Paraguay?s Supreme Court.

?We have carefully navigated this very sensitive and politically sticky situation,? one cable said. ?It appears that we have no other viable choice.?

A Larger Mandate

Created in 1973, the D.E.A. has steadily built its international turf, an expansion primarily driven by the multinational nature of the drug trade, but also by forces within the agency seeking a larger mandate. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the agency?s leaders have cited what they describe as an expanding nexus between drugs and terrorism in further building its overseas presence.

In Afghanistan, for example, ?DEA officials have become convinced that ?no daylight? exists between drug traffickers at the highest level and Taliban insurgents,? Karen Tandy, then the agency?s administrator, told European Union officials in a 2007 briefing, according to a cable from Brussels.

Ms. Tandy described an agency informant?s recording of a meeting in Nangarhar Province between 9 Taliban members and 11 drug traffickers to coordinate their financial support for the insurgency, and she said the agency was trying to put a ?security belt? around Afghanistan to block the import of chemicals for heroin processing. The agency was embedding its officers in military units around Afghanistan, she said. In 2007 alone, the D.E.A. opened new bureaus in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, as well as in three Mexican cities.

Cables describe lengthy negotiations over the extradition to the United States of the two notorious arms dealers wanted by the D.E.A. as it reached beyond pure counternarcotics cases: Monzer al-Kassar, a Syrian arrested in Spain, and Viktor Bout, a Russian arrested in Thailand. Both men were charged with agreeing to illegal arms sales to informants posing as weapons buyers for Colombian rebels. Notably, neither man was charged with violating narcotics laws.

Late last year in a D.E.A. case, three men from Mali accused of plotting to transport tons of cocaine across northwest Africa were charged under a narco-terrorism statute added to the law in 2006, and they were linked to both Al Qaeda and its North African affiliate, called Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

The men themselves had claimed the terrorism link, according to the D.E.A., though officials told The New York Times that they had no independent corroboration of the Qaeda connections. Experts on the desert regions of North Africa, long a route for smuggling between Africa and Europe, are divided about whether Al Qaeda operatives play a significant role in the drug trade, and some skeptics note that adding ?terrorism? to any case can draw additional investigative resources and impress a jury.

New Routes for Graft

Most times, however, the agency?s expansion seems driven more by external forces than internal ones, with traffickers opening new routes to accommodate new markets. As Mexican cartels take control of drug shipments from South America to the United States, Colombian cartels have begun moving cocaine through West Africa to Europe.

The cables offer a portrait of the staggering effect on Mali, whose deserts have been littered with abandoned airplanes ? including at least one Boeing 727 ? and Ghana, where traffickers easily smuggle drugs through an airport?s ?VVIP (Very Very Important Person) lounge.?

Top-to-bottom corruption in many West African countries made it hard for diplomats to know whom to trust. In one 2008 case in Sierra Leone, President Ernest Bai Koroma moved to prosecute and extradite three South American traffickers seized with about 1,500 pounds of cocaine, while his attorney general was accused of offering to release them for $2.5 million in bribes.

In Nigeria, the D.E.A. reported a couple of years earlier that diplomats at the Liberian Embassy were using official vehicles to transport drugs across the border because they were not getting paid by their war-torn government and ?had to fend for themselves.?

A May 2008 cable from Guinea described a kind of heart-to-heart conversation about the drug trade between the American ambassador, Phillip Carter III, and Guinea?s prime minister, Lansana Kouyat?. At one point, the cable said, Mr. Kouyat? ?visibly slumped in his chair? and acknowledged that Guinea?s most powerful drug trafficker was Ousmane Cont?, the son of Lansana Cont?, then the president. (After the death of his father, Mr. Cont? went to prison.)

A few days later, diplomats reported evidence that the corruption ran much deeper inside the Guinean government than the president?s son. In a colorfully written cable ? with chapters titled ?Excuses, Excuses, Excuses? and ?Theatrical Production? ? diplomats described attending what was billed as a drug bonfire that had been staged by the Guinean government to demonstrate its commitment to combating the drug trade.

Senior Guinean officials, including the country?s drug czar, the chief of police and the justice minister, watched as officers set fire to what the government claimed was about 350 pounds of marijuana and 860 pounds of cocaine, valued at $6.5 million.

In reality, American diplomats wrote, the whole incineration was a sham. Informants had previously told the embassy that Guinean authorities replaced the cocaine with manioc flour, proving, the diplomats wrote, ?that narco-corruption has contaminated? the government of Guinea ?at the highest levels.?

And it did not take the D.E.A.?s sophisticated intelligence techniques to figure out the truth. The cable reported that even the ambassador?s driver sniffed out a hoax.

?I know the smell of burning marijuana,? the driver said. ?And I didn?t smell anything.?


Anyone have any doubts that the "Drug War" is anything but bad? This is very much like the corruption that happened during alcohol prohibition. And it will spread further and further. And this is the cause of the problem, the laws against drugs, and the "war" does nothing more than fan the flames.
 
Top